Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Climate Change | Research article

Fossil fuels are harming our brains: identifying key messages about the health effects of air pollution from fossil fuels

Authors: John Kotcher, Edward Maibach, Wen-Tsing Choi

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Previous research suggests that providing generalized information about the health implications of air pollution from fossil fuels may be effective at promoting public support for a transition to cleaner sources of energy. We sought to extend that work by identifying the specific messages about the health implications of air pollution from fossil fuels that are most and least concerning to people, and whether rankings of concern vary among different audiences. We also hypothesized that reading the statements would influence people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions in a manner supportive of a transition to cleaner sources of energy.

Methods

We conducted a survey with a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1644) from a non-probability internet panel. Using maximum difference scaling, participants ranked a set of ten statements that revealed which statements were the most and least concerning to them. We also measured attitudes about air pollution and energy use before and after the ranking exercise to assess changes in opinion caused by cumulative exposure to the messages.

Results

Across all sub-groups examined, participants were most concerned by a message about the neurological impacts of air pollution on babies and children. After the ranking exercise, participants expressed increases in perceived health harm of air pollution and fossil fuels, a desire for more clean energy, and intention to engage in consumer advocacy to support clean energy.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess how people respond to information about the neurological health harms of air pollution from fossil fuels. While efforts to communicate the cardio-pulmonary health harms of air pollution are well established, our study suggests that efforts should now be organized to communicate the neurological effects of air pollution from fossil fuels, especially the neuro-developmental effects on babies and children.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
National Research Council. Hidden costs of energy: unpriced consequences of energy production and use. 2009.
2.
USGCRP. The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: a scientific assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2016. p. 312.
3.
Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Berry H, et al. The 2018 report of the lancet countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. Lancet. 2018.
4.
Landrigan PJ, Fuller R, Acosta NJR, Adeyi O, Arnold R, Basu N, et al. The lancet commission on pollution and health. Lancet. 2018;391(10119):462–512.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Deborah B, Bellinger David C, Birnbaum Linda S, Conry Jeanne A, Asa B, Aimin C, et al. Project TENDR: targeting environmental neuro-developmental risks the TENDR consensus statement. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(7):A118–22.
6.
Heusinkveld HJ, Wahle T, Campbell A, Westerink RHS, Tran L, Johnston H, et al. Neurodegenerative and neurological disorders by small inhaled particles. NeuroToxicology. 2016 Sep 1;56:94–106.PubMedCrossRef
7.
WHO. Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution: REVIHAAP project: final technical report. WHO Regional Office for Europe Copenhagen; 2013.
8.
Payne-Sturges DC, Marty MA, Perera F, Miller MD, Swanson M, Ellickson K, et al. Healthy air, healthy brains: advancing air pollution policy to protect Children’s health. Am J Public Health. 2019 Feb 21;109(4):550–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Casey JA, Karasek D, Ogburn EL, Goin DE, Dang K, Braveman PA, et al. Retirements of coal and oil power plants in California: association with reduced preterm birth among populations nearby. Am J Epidemiol. 2018 Aug 1;187(8):1586–94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Cifuentes L, Borja-Aburto VH, Gouveia N, Thurston G, Davis DL. Hidden health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Science. 2001;293(5533):1257–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
West JJ, Smith SJ, Silva RA, Naik V, Zhang Y, Adelman Z, et al. Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nat Clim Chang. 2013 Oct;3(10):885–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Yang M, Chou S-Y. The impact of environmental regulation on fetal health: evidence from the shutdown of a coal-fired power plant located upwind of New Jersey. J Environ Econ Manag. 2018 Jul 1;90:269–93.CrossRef
13.
Hathaway J, Maibach EW. Health implications of climate change: a review of the literature about the perception of the public and health professionals. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2018:1–8.
14.
Kotcher JE, Maibach E, Montoro M, Hassol SJ. How Americans respond to information about global warming health impacts: evidence from a national survey experiment. GeoHealth. 2018.
15.
Myers T, Nisbet M, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim Chang. 2012;113(3):1105–12.CrossRef
16.
Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM. Cheap and clean: how Americans think about energy in the age of global warming. MIT Press; 2014.
17.
Petrovic N, Madrigano J, Zaval L. Motivating mitigation: when health matters more than climate change. Clim Chang. 2014 Sep 1;126(1–2):245–54.CrossRef
18.
Hanus N, Wong-Parodi G, Hoyos L, Rauch M. Framing clean energy campaigns to promote civic engagement among parents. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(3):034021.CrossRef
19.
Feldman L, Hart PS. Climate change as a polarizing cue: framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob Environ Change. 2018;51:54–66.CrossRef
20.
Hart PS, Feldman L. Would it be better to not talk about climate change? The impact of climate change and air pollution frames on support for regulating power plant emissions. J Environ Psychol. 2018 Sep 12.
21.
Stokes LC, Warshaw C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat Energy. 2017 Aug;2(8):17107.CrossRef
22.
Goldfarb JL, Buessing M, Kriner DL. Geographic proximity to coal plants and U.S. public support for extending the production tax credit. Energy Policy. 2016 Dec 1;99:299–307.CrossRef
23.
Asensio O, Delmas M. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(6):E510–5.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Asensio O, Delmas M. The dynamics of behavior change: evidence from energy conservation. J Econ Behav Organ 2016;126, Part A:196–212.CrossRef
25.
Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr. 1992 Dec 1;59(4):329–49.CrossRef
26.
Bickerstaff K, Walker G. Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Glob Environ Change. 2001;11(2):133–45.CrossRef
27.
Kotcher J, Adebayo A, Nelson A, Borth A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, et al. Do Americans understand how air pollution from fossil fuels harms health? New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University; 2019.
28.
Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39(5):752.CrossRef
29.
Petty R, Cacioppo J. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1986. p. 123–205.
30.
Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH. The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev. 2016;58(5):4–23.CrossRef
31.
Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2016 Jun;6(6):622–6.CrossRef
32.
McCright AM, Xiao C, Dunlap RE. Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Soc Sci Res. 2014;48:251–60.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
34.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991 Dec;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
35.
Bell ML, Ebisu K. Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Dec;120(12):1699–704.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Miranda ML, Edwards SE, Keating MH, Paul CJ. Making the environmental justice grade: the relative burden of air pollution exposure in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Jun;8(6):1755–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Cohen S. Maximum difference scaling: improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. In: Sawtooth software conference proceedings, Sawtooth software, Inc. 2003. p. 61–74.
38.
Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-worst scaling: theory, methods and applications: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
39.
Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Mark. 1992;11(2):12–25.CrossRef
40.
Howell J. A simple introduction to TURF analysis. Orem, Utah: Sawtooth software, Inc; 2016. (Sawtooth software research paper series)
41.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
42.
Weber R, Popova L. Testing equivalence in communication research: theory and application. Commun Methods Meas. 2012 Jul 1;6(3):190–213.CrossRef
43.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G* power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.CrossRef
44.
Akerlof K, Parker C, Winch P. Public health, energy, & climate change: a Maryland statewide survey – fall 2016. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for climate change communication: George Mason University; 2016.
45.
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Gustafson A, Bergquist P, et al. Energy in the American mind - December 2018. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University; 2018.
46.
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M, Kotcher J. Politics & Global Warming, March 2018. New Haven: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University; 2018.
47.
Levine AS, Kline R. A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Clim Chang. 2017 May 1;142(1–2):301–9.CrossRef
48.
Kormos C, Gifford R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol. 2014 Dec 1;40:359–71.CrossRef
49.
Bergquist M, Nilsson A. I saw the sign: promoting energy conservation via normative prompts. J Environ Psychol. 2016 Jun 1;46:23–31.CrossRef
50.
Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X. The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Clim Chang. 2014 Jul 1;125(2):163–78.CrossRef
51.
Doherty KL, Webler TN. Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nat Clim Chang. 2016 May 16.
52.
Bashir NY, Lockwood P, Chasteen AL, Nadolny D, Noyes I. The ironic impact of activists: negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2013 Dec 1;43(7):614–26.CrossRef
53.
Han H. How organizations develop activists: civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. USA: Oxford University Press; 2014.CrossRef
54.
Han H. The organizational roots of political activism: field experiments on creating a relational context. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2016 May;110(2):296–307.CrossRef
55.
Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In: Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press; 2008. p. 61–149.
56.
Zaval L, Markowitz EM, Weber EU. How will I be remembered? Conserving the environment for the sake of One’s legacy. Psychol Sci. 2015 Feb 1;26(2):231–6.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Liberman A, Chaiken S. Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1992;18(6):669–79.CrossRef
58.
Baker R, Brick JM, Bates NA, Battaglia M, Couper MP, Dever JA, et al. Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. J Surv Stat Methodol. 2013 Nov 1;1(2):90–143.CrossRef
59.
Lecheler S, de VCH. How long do news framing effects last? A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2016;40(1):3–30.CrossRef
60.
Stenhouse N. Spreading success beyond the laboratory: applying the RE-AIM framework for effective environmental communication interventions at scale. Environ Commun. 2017;0(0):1–13.
61.
Wang S, Corner A, Chapman D, Markowitz E. Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2018;9(2):e509.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Fossil fuels are harming our brains: identifying key messages about the health effects of air pollution from fossil fuels
Authors
John Kotcher
Edward Maibach
Wen-Tsing Choi
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Climate Change
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7373-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Public Health 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Suicidal ideation and attempt among school going adolescents in Bhutan – a secondary analysis of a global school-based student health survey in Bhutan 2016

Research article

Adolescent sexual initiation and pregnancy: what more can be learned through further analysis of the demographic and health surveys in the Philippines?

Research article

Social determinants and cardiovascular disease mortality in Panama, 2012–2016

Research article

Inequities in consistent condom use among sexually experienced undergraduates in mainland China: implications for planning interventions

Research article

Niacin, lutein and zeaxanthin and physical activity have an impact on Charlson comorbidity index using zero-inflated negative binomial regression model: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013–2014

Research article

Understanding factors influencing linkage to HIV care in a rural setting, Mbeya, Tanzania: qualitative findings of a mixed methods study